drjwbaker/Tuesday (DHOxSS 2013)

## gistfile1.txt
Bibliographic resources

Introductory publications:
Albert, R. & Barabási, A., 2002. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of modern physics, 74(January), pp.47-97.
Barabási, A.-L., 2002. Linked: The New Science of Networks, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus.
Freeman, L., 2004. The development of social network analysis, Vancouver: Empirical Press.
Newman, M.E.J., 2010. Networks: an introduction, Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.
Watts, D.J., 2003. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age, London: Vintage.
Watts, D.J., 2004. The “New” Science of Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), pp.243-270.

Networks in Archaeology
Bentley, R.A. & Maschner, H.D.G., 2003. Complex systems and archaeology, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Bentley, R.A. & Shennan, S.J. 2003. Cultural Transmission and Stochastic Network Growth. American Antiquity, 68(3), pp.459-485.
Brughmans, T. 2010. Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 29(3), pp.277-303.
Brughmans, T. 2012. Thinking through networks: A Review of Formal Network Methods in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory.
Collar, A. 2007. Network Theory and Religious Innovation. Mediterranean Historical Review, 22(1), pp.149-162.
Coward, F. 2010. Small worlds, material culture and ancient Near Eastern social networks. Proceedings of the British Academy, 158, pp.449-479.
Coward, F. & Gamble, C., 2008. Big brains, small worlds: material culture and the evolution of the mind. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 363(1499), pp.1969-79.
Graham, S. 2006a. Networks, Agent-Based Models and the Antonine Itineraries: Implications for Roman Archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 19(1), pp.45-64.
Graham, S. 2006b. EX FIGLINIS, the network dynamics of the Tiber valley brick industry in the hinterland of Rome, BAR international series 1486. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Knappett, C. 2011. An archaeology of interaction: network perspectives on material culture and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knappett, C., Evans, T. & Rivers, R., 2008. Modelling maritime interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity, 82(318), p.1009–1024.
Knappett, C., Evans, T. & Rivers, R. 2011. The Theran eruption and Minoan palatial collapse: new interpretations gained from modelling the maritime network. Antiquity, 85(329), pp.1008-1023.
Schich, M. & Coscia, M., 2011. Exploring Co-Occurrence on a Meso and Global Level Using Network Analysis and Rule Mining. In Proceedings of the ninth workshop on mining and Learning with Graphs (MLG ’11). San Diego: ACM.
Sindbæk, S.M. 2007a. Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in Early Viking Age Scandinavia. Antiquity, 81(311), pp.119-132.
Sindbæk, S.M. 2007b. The Small World of the Vikings : Networks in Early Medieval Communication and Exchange. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 40, pp.59-74.

Graph/network applications in the Humanities
Bergs, A., 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics. Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421-1503). (Topics in English Linguistics 51), Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Ferrer I Cancho, R. & Solé, R.V., 2001. The small world of human language. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, 268(1482), pp.2261-5.
Green, S., 2002. Culture in a network: dykes, webs and women in London and Manchester. In N. Rapport, ed. British Subjects: An Anthropology of Britain. Oxford: Berg, pp. 181-202.
Lemercier, C., 2010. Formal network methods in history: why and how? In G. Fertig, ed. Social Networks, Political Institutions, and Rural Societies. Turnhout: Brepols publishers.
Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, a. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M. a., Aiden, E. L., 2010. Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science, 176.
Newman, M., 2001. Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64(1), pp.1-8.
Newman, M.E.J., 2001. Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64(1), pp.1-7.
Padgett, J. & Ansell, C., 1993. Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), pp.1259-1319.
Padgett, J.F. & McLean, P.D., 2006. Organizational Invention and Elite Transformation: The Birth of Partnership Systems in Renaissance Florence. American Journal of Sociology, 6(5), pp.1463-1568.
Ruffini, G.R., 2008. Social networks in Byzantine Egypt, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, D.R. & Johansen, U.C., 2005. Network analysis and ethnographic problems. Process models of a Turkish nomad clan, Oxford.

Key publications in physics:
Barabási, A.-L. & Albert, R., 1999. Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science, 286(5439), pp.509-512.
Newman, M.E.J., 2010. Networks: an introduction, Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.
Newman, M., Barabasi, A.-L. & Watts, D.J., 2006. Structure and Dynamics of Networks, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Watts, D.J. & Strogatz, S.H., 1998. Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393(6684), pp.440-2.
Key publications in social network analysis:
Carrington, P.J., Scott, J. & Wasserman, S., 2005. Models and methods in social network analysis, Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, L.C., 1977. A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), pp.35-41.
Granovetter, M., 1983. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological theory, 1(1), p.201–233.
Scott, J., 2000. Social Network Analysis. A Handbook. 2nd ed., London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Scott, J. & Carrington, P.J., 2011. The SAGE handbook of social network analysis, Sage.
Wasserman, S. & Faust, K., 1994. Social network analysis : methods and applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

## Tuesday (DHOxSS 2013)
[live notes, so excuse the errors, omissions and personal perspective]
***This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.***

Shared zotero group: http://www.zotero.org/groups/dhoxss_2013

#DHOxSS Rowan Wilson (OSS Watch), Varieties of Openness

OSS Watch a JISC funded project. Advisory service on free and open source software.
Talk about the openness component of why JISC are no longer funding OSS. Not critical of JISC.
Rather undercurrent of discussion of openness led to, and the problem Rowan sees within that.
What OSS Watch does:
- Briefing notes, training, events on open source software.
- Also help people acquire open source software: to ensure good value in public funded IT services.
- And community development.
- Non-advocacy. Provide information, let people make their mind up.
Wilson: licencing framework for OpenSpires and lead on licencing issues for OSS Watch.
Wilson Review of JISC 2010 found JISC stance on the 'open agenda' to be 'problematic', so it seemed an anti-publisher bias.
But in doing so open access, resources, source and standards somewhat lumped together. Is this fair?
Perhaps not, but first go back to IP.

IP protects a timed monopoly on an intellectual as opposed to physical property. Of most interest to us here is copyright.
Copyright relies on fixation of IP.
In the UK, the work of just lighting something and photographing it contains enough skill, labour and judgement to accrue copyright.
Licences sit on top of copyright as an agreement between the licensor and licencee.

Free and open source software. Right to adapt and distribute with access to source code.
Not freeware, which is free to obtain as opposed to free to reuse. FOSS mandates copyleft, value you add must to reshared the same.
Freedom here then is being forced to used software in a certain way which is freer for all (if less so for every individual).
'Free software' movement Based on ethical and political rationale for free software. Odd, powerful and unpredicted effects.
Later 'open source movement' more pragmatic and business focused, disliked by the former.
'Free and open source software' therefore used by OSS Watch to avoid choosing a side.

Open content. Originally focused on GNU Free Documentation Licence, but CC came along and was better!
Open content led to Open Educational Resources, based on Capetown Declaration 2007 (at Shuttleworth Foundation moot).
Some creator scepticism. Sense of doing people out of work, solved problem of course materials already having been written.
Conspiracy! So, yet to see collaborative development divident that FOSS seems to have produced. Not taken off in the same way. Disappointing and puzzling.
Open standards. Licences that do no discriminate against specific market actors.
Against background of this are numerous enormous British IT procurement failures. Why?
Our public servants are non-technical and hand out big contracts, when they need to so break up contracts into interoperable chunks.
So we've ended up at a very different type of open: open as interoperable.
Open access. Get at documents and adapt it. Though text mining seemingly being left by the wayside, in spite of Hargreaves Review.
Conventional academic practice vs evolving etiquette of CC reuse? Is there a case for making out the middle man?
Elsevier argument interesting not so much for what it says, but for what it argues against: that it has no value.
Open data. Public money need to produce reusable data and verifiable data.
EU has database rights the US doesn't have. This right unfortunate as it often makes CC unusable (though we still use them).
Open innovation, helps collaboration by not adding more layers to basic functions.
Open hardware, going to be more important as 3d printing takes off.
But what are we controlling? Trying to make IP that doesn't currently exist in order to make them free.
Zero Option. 'No licence' movement. Do not assert IP and ethically refuse to respect others' IP. Back to free vs open.

So what is the problem?
I stopped being funded... By why did JISC get out? Because openness is:
- Incorrectly percieved as a single thing.
- Seen as a thret by the mediation industries.
- Seen as a threat by the IP supported industries.
- FOSS model doesn't work as well in areas where quality is not objectively testable (eg OERs)
- Incompatible with academic openness?
- Does FOSS Openness contain the seeds of its own destruction?


Tom Brughmans, Network Analysis

What are networks?
Multi-disciplinary networks
Network viz
Analytical techniques
Practical 1: historical
Practical 2: twitter
[Cytoscape]

What is network science? Brandes, Robins, McCranie & Wasserman, 'What is network science? Network Science 1:1 (2013).
Network science is the study of network models.
Network concept as a useful mode of understanding a phenomenon, drawing then on appropriate data.
Anything could be networked, but only use if it adds something to your research question.
Make choices on what plays what role in the network before doing the math: eg river towns, roman road town
[what does this have to do central place theory, Walter Christaller]
Carl Knappett.
Networks spatial, but can be applied to space spaces. Can work at various scales. People and objects. Temporal element.
[on the latter, how does this interact with Latour's sense of networks]
Undirected versus directed (reciprocation vs non-reciprocation), and weighted-directed an extra layer.
Nodes and edges, the latter known as arcs in directed networks.
Network science as modelling.

Histories.
Social Network Analysis. Since 1960s(ish). Assumption of actors as interdependent, with a flow of resources/innovations between them.
Compex Network Analysis. Since 1990s. Network models from physics. Based on real world networks (neurons, diseases) are similar.
What they don't share is that actors as social entities, and yet they are both about interdependent actors.
Newman (2010) four types of network: technological, information, social, biological. But sees these as fluid, and engages with SNA scholars.

Types of network.
Acyclic networks are where there are no closed loops of directed edges.
Eg, citation networks where a paper from 1995 cannot cite papers from 1998 and 2000.
Ego-centered networks: extracted sub-network to understand an individual within a network.

Network Visualization
Geoviz: as useful for absence as anything else.
Topological visualization: ego networks, emphasises structural features.
Circular visualization: meaningless...
Conway at Bath University on people doing network viz without understanding the algorithm.
Layers of choice within different types of viz.

Analytical techniques
Shortest path length = average of all shortest path scores between all possible pairs of vertices in the network.
 > counting number of nodes you pass through (for centrality measures).
(can become exponential calculation, so algorithm must take short cuts and make assumptions)
Clustering coefficient = average of a fraction of all possible relationships betwenn all nodes and their direct neighbours


PM Network Analysis practical
In this example, directed networks. Often both ways. So agnostic.
Some lines of sight more probable than others. See how the structure changes based on focusing on >50% or else.
Completed a network using Tom's data in Cytoscape. See guides at http://digital.humanities.ox.ac.uk/dhoxss/2013/materials/HowtodoDH-day2.zip
Re layout after filtering the network really important.
Think in terms of close networks, outliers, weak bonds.
Link together the qualitative interpretations of network with stats from the network analysis.
BUT it is always important to know what you have done, the data below, before making sound kind of grand theories.


***This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.***

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>.
	Bibliographic resources

	Introductory publications:
	Albert, R. & Barabási, A., 2002. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of modern physics, 74(January), pp.47-97.
	Barabási, A.-L., 2002. Linked: The New Science of Networks, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus.
	Freeman, L., 2004. The development of social network analysis, Vancouver: Empirical Press.
	Newman, M.E.J., 2010. Networks: an introduction, Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.
	Watts, D.J., 2003. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age, London: Vintage.
	Watts, D.J., 2004. The “New” Science of Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), pp.243-270.

	Networks in Archaeology
	Bentley, R.A. & Maschner, H.D.G., 2003. Complex systems and archaeology, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
	Bentley, R.A. & Shennan, S.J. 2003. Cultural Transmission and Stochastic Network Growth. American Antiquity, 68(3), pp.459-485.
	Brughmans, T. 2010. Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 29(3), pp.277-303.
	Brughmans, T. 2012. Thinking through networks: A Review of Formal Network Methods in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory.
	Collar, A. 2007. Network Theory and Religious Innovation. Mediterranean Historical Review, 22(1), pp.149-162.
	Coward, F. 2010. Small worlds, material culture and ancient Near Eastern social networks. Proceedings of the British Academy, 158, pp.449-479.
	Coward, F. & Gamble, C., 2008. Big brains, small worlds: material culture and the evolution of the mind. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 363(1499), pp.1969-79.
	Graham, S. 2006a. Networks, Agent-Based Models and the Antonine Itineraries: Implications for Roman Archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 19(1), pp.45-64.
	Graham, S. 2006b. EX FIGLINIS, the network dynamics of the Tiber valley brick industry in the hinterland of Rome, BAR international series 1486. Oxford: Archaeopress.
	Knappett, C. 2011. An archaeology of interaction: network perspectives on material culture and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
	Knappett, C., Evans, T. & Rivers, R., 2008. Modelling maritime interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity, 82(318), p.1009–1024.
	Knappett, C., Evans, T. & Rivers, R. 2011. The Theran eruption and Minoan palatial collapse: new interpretations gained from modelling the maritime network. Antiquity, 85(329), pp.1008-1023.
	Schich, M. & Coscia, M., 2011. Exploring Co-Occurrence on a Meso and Global Level Using Network Analysis and Rule Mining. In Proceedings of the ninth workshop on mining and Learning with Graphs (MLG ’11). San Diego: ACM.
	Sindbæk, S.M. 2007a. Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in Early Viking Age Scandinavia. Antiquity, 81(311), pp.119-132.
	Sindbæk, S.M. 2007b. The Small World of the Vikings : Networks in Early Medieval Communication and Exchange. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 40, pp.59-74.

	Graph/network applications in the Humanities
	Bergs, A., 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics. Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421-1503). (Topics in English Linguistics 51), Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
	Ferrer I Cancho, R. & Solé, R.V., 2001. The small world of human language. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, 268(1482), pp.2261-5.
	Green, S., 2002. Culture in a network: dykes, webs and women in London and Manchester. In N. Rapport, ed. British Subjects: An Anthropology of Britain. Oxford: Berg, pp. 181-202.
	Lemercier, C., 2010. Formal network methods in history: why and how? In G. Fertig, ed. Social Networks, Political Institutions, and Rural Societies. Turnhout: Brepols publishers.
	Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, a. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M. a., Aiden, E. L., 2010. Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science, 176.
	Newman, M., 2001. Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64(1), pp.1-8.
	Newman, M.E.J., 2001. Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64(1), pp.1-7.
	Padgett, J. & Ansell, C., 1993. Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), pp.1259-1319.
	Padgett, J.F. & McLean, P.D., 2006. Organizational Invention and Elite Transformation: The Birth of Partnership Systems in Renaissance Florence. American Journal of Sociology, 6(5), pp.1463-1568.
	Ruffini, G.R., 2008. Social networks in Byzantine Egypt, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
	White, D.R. & Johansen, U.C., 2005. Network analysis and ethnographic problems. Process models of a Turkish nomad clan, Oxford.

	Key publications in physics:
	Barabási, A.-L. & Albert, R., 1999. Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science, 286(5439), pp.509-512.
	Newman, M.E.J., 2010. Networks: an introduction, Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.
	Newman, M., Barabasi, A.-L. & Watts, D.J., 2006. Structure and Dynamics of Networks, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
	Watts, D.J. & Strogatz, S.H., 1998. Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393(6684), pp.440-2.
	Key publications in social network analysis:
	Carrington, P.J., Scott, J. & Wasserman, S., 2005. Models and methods in social network analysis, Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
	Freeman, L.C., 1977. A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), pp.35-41.
	Granovetter, M., 1983. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological theory, 1(1), p.201–233.
	Scott, J., 2000. Social Network Analysis. A Handbook. 2nd ed., London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
	Scott, J. & Carrington, P.J., 2011. The SAGE handbook of social network analysis, Sage.
	Wasserman, S. & Faust, K., 1994. Social network analysis : methods and applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
	[live notes, so excuse the errors, omissions and personal perspective]
	*This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.*

	Shared zotero group: http://www.zotero.org/groups/dhoxss_2013

	#DHOxSS Rowan Wilson (OSS Watch), Varieties of Openness

	OSS Watch a JISC funded project. Advisory service on free and open source software.
	Talk about the openness component of why JISC are no longer funding OSS. Not critical of JISC.
	Rather undercurrent of discussion of openness led to, and the problem Rowan sees within that.
	What OSS Watch does:
	- Briefing notes, training, events on open source software.
	- Also help people acquire open source software: to ensure good value in public funded IT services.
	- And community development.
	- Non-advocacy. Provide information, let people make their mind up.
	Wilson: licencing framework for OpenSpires and lead on licencing issues for OSS Watch.
	Wilson Review of JISC 2010 found JISC stance on the 'open agenda' to be 'problematic', so it seemed an anti-publisher bias.
	But in doing so open access, resources, source and standards somewhat lumped together. Is this fair?
	Perhaps not, but first go back to IP.

	IP protects a timed monopoly on an intellectual as opposed to physical property. Of most interest to us here is copyright.
	Copyright relies on fixation of IP.
	In the UK, the work of just lighting something and photographing it contains enough skill, labour and judgement to accrue copyright.
	Licences sit on top of copyright as an agreement between the licensor and licencee.

	Free and open source software. Right to adapt and distribute with access to source code.
	Not freeware, which is free to obtain as opposed to free to reuse. FOSS mandates copyleft, value you add must to reshared the same.
	Freedom here then is being forced to used software in a certain way which is freer for all (if less so for every individual).
	'Free software' movement Based on ethical and political rationale for free software. Odd, powerful and unpredicted effects.
	Later 'open source movement' more pragmatic and business focused, disliked by the former.
	'Free and open source software' therefore used by OSS Watch to avoid choosing a side.

	Open content. Originally focused on GNU Free Documentation Licence, but CC came along and was better!
	Open content led to Open Educational Resources, based on Capetown Declaration 2007 (at Shuttleworth Foundation moot).
	Some creator scepticism. Sense of doing people out of work, solved problem of course materials already having been written.
	Conspiracy! So, yet to see collaborative development divident that FOSS seems to have produced. Not taken off in the same way. Disappointing and puzzling.
	Open standards. Licences that do no discriminate against specific market actors.
	Against background of this are numerous enormous British IT procurement failures. Why?
	Our public servants are non-technical and hand out big contracts, when they need to so break up contracts into interoperable chunks.
	So we've ended up at a very different type of open: open as interoperable.
	Open access. Get at documents and adapt it. Though text mining seemingly being left by the wayside, in spite of Hargreaves Review.
	Conventional academic practice vs evolving etiquette of CC reuse? Is there a case for making out the middle man?
	Elsevier argument interesting not so much for what it says, but for what it argues against: that it has no value.
	Open data. Public money need to produce reusable data and verifiable data.
	EU has database rights the US doesn't have. This right unfortunate as it often makes CC unusable (though we still use them).
	Open innovation, helps collaboration by not adding more layers to basic functions.
	Open hardware, going to be more important as 3d printing takes off.
	But what are we controlling? Trying to make IP that doesn't currently exist in order to make them free.
	Zero Option. 'No licence' movement. Do not assert IP and ethically refuse to respect others' IP. Back to free vs open.

	So what is the problem?
	I stopped being funded... By why did JISC get out? Because openness is:
	- Incorrectly percieved as a single thing.
	- Seen as a thret by the mediation industries.
	- Seen as a threat by the IP supported industries.
	- FOSS model doesn't work as well in areas where quality is not objectively testable (eg OERs)
	- Incompatible with academic openness?
	- Does FOSS Openness contain the seeds of its own destruction?



	Tom Brughmans, Network Analysis

	What are networks?
	Multi-disciplinary networks
	Network viz
	Analytical techniques
	Practical 1: historical
	Practical 2: twitter
	[Cytoscape]

	What is network science? Brandes, Robins, McCranie & Wasserman, 'What is network science? Network Science 1:1 (2013).
	Network science is the study of network models.
	Network concept as a useful mode of understanding a phenomenon, drawing then on appropriate data.
	Anything could be networked, but only use if it adds something to your research question.
	Make choices on what plays what role in the network before doing the math: eg river towns, roman road town
	[what does this have to do central place theory, Walter Christaller]
	Carl Knappett.
	Networks spatial, but can be applied to space spaces. Can work at various scales. People and objects. Temporal element.
	[on the latter, how does this interact with Latour's sense of networks]
	Undirected versus directed (reciprocation vs non-reciprocation), and weighted-directed an extra layer.
	Nodes and edges, the latter known as arcs in directed networks.
	Network science as modelling.

	Histories.
	Social Network Analysis. Since 1960s(ish). Assumption of actors as interdependent, with a flow of resources/innovations between them.
	Compex Network Analysis. Since 1990s. Network models from physics. Based on real world networks (neurons, diseases) are similar.
	What they don't share is that actors as social entities, and yet they are both about interdependent actors.
	Newman (2010) four types of network: technological, information, social, biological. But sees these as fluid, and engages with SNA scholars.

	Types of network.
	Acyclic networks are where there are no closed loops of directed edges.
	Eg, citation networks where a paper from 1995 cannot cite papers from 1998 and 2000.
	Ego-centered networks: extracted sub-network to understand an individual within a network.

	Network Visualization
	Geoviz: as useful for absence as anything else.
	Topological visualization: ego networks, emphasises structural features.
	Circular visualization: meaningless...
	Conway at Bath University on people doing network viz without understanding the algorithm.
	Layers of choice within different types of viz.

	Analytical techniques
	Shortest path length = average of all shortest path scores between all possible pairs of vertices in the network.
	> counting number of nodes you pass through (for centrality measures).
	(can become exponential calculation, so algorithm must take short cuts and make assumptions)
	Clustering coefficient = average of a fraction of all possible relationships betwenn all nodes and their direct neighbours


	PM Network Analysis practical
	In this example, directed networks. Often both ways. So agnostic.
	Some lines of sight more probable than others. See how the structure changes based on focusing on >50% or else.
	Completed a network using Tom's data in Cytoscape. See guides at http://digital.humanities.ox.ac.uk/dhoxss/2013/materials/HowtodoDH-day2.zip
	Re layout after filtering the network really important.
	Think in terms of close networks, outliers, weak bonds.
	Link together the qualitative interpretations of network with stats from the network analysis.
	BUT it is always important to know what you have done, the data below, before making sound kind of grand theories.


	*This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.*

	<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>.